Let The Dead Bury Their Dead

There needs to be some idea of whom has authority to correct others. Clearly God has that authority and if a believer holds true L(G) and then we may state that its is positive for God to recognise or "elect" an individual 'x' (i.e. pos(G~x)) then not only may we have cogx(G) but we also may state that there is a suitably fine interval t2 - t1 within which the believer 'x' will be continually redeemed.

Now, we may define authority of 'x' over 'y' in the name of God as AG(y) <=> Ax(y) for all 'y' that have an interval t2 - t1 longer than that of 'x' in some fault f. (Remember that to find fault with the law of God is again a "fault" - it is condemnation under the law, or "sin". This ensures that repentance, in returning to freedom from the condemnation of the law suffices for correction as required, and not on each individual matter of disobedience.)

Now, the fineness or bound for each individual in their various intervals t2 - t1 as to whether they be elected or not is up to the grace of God, as in eternity it is the hope of us all that we will tend towards an interval of zero. Jesus as the perfect example is the finisher of our faith and it's perfector - and we expect Him to have authority even as His Father has authority. For us however there is no authority over each other unless it is correction that implies a predestination to that interval of zero in the believer to be corrected.

Then, if there is no authority to correct 'y' then we may assume that 'y' is not saved, rather than the question of whether 'x' has the authority to correct! Jesus repeatedly answered His disciples' questions as to whom would have the authority (to be the greatest) with the answer that the greatest would have to be a servant to all. In this fashion, even those that hold some L(X) which is less fine a filter than L(G) have authority in their errors over those with a wider "gate" or longer interval t2-t1. Maintenance of faith is the requirement of ministry, not the leadership of those with faith.

It then becomes the case that the correction is dispensed not by leadership, but by provision and instruction to those that do in fact, not have an ultrafilter L(G) but merely a less fine filter L(X). Service is given in instructing proper faith and doing so by example - there is no correction in the name of God outside of the ministering of the gospel.

That said, anyone without L(X) (or any faith in any X) is totally without faith and therefore not to be served and instructed, the teaching of Jesus is to give such instruction a wide berth - not to cast pearls before swine or equivalently, to let the dead bury their dead.

Those 'x' that hold some L(X) (not as G) in authority over 'y' also with some L(X) held by 'y' do so incorrectly, the blind lead the blind, we should only state that authority to correct is present when L(X) is tending towards L(G), that the interval t2-t1 tends to zero in the case of 'y' and at some point 'y' will hold L(G) rather than the requirement that 'x' will hold L(G) (and this is counter-intuitive.) 'x' is merely required to have t2 - t1 finer than found in 'y' when the intervals of x and y intersect. We assume that since 'x' is a shorter interval with authority, the interval for y will properly follow the redemption of 'x' at t2.

So if we use 't' for 'x' and 's' for 'y', there is authority for 'x' to correct 'y' only when for that fault or sin 'f' conflicting with L(G) is redeemed at t2 for x, and t2 < s2. We also require that s2 - s1 = 0 at infinity.

What of the converse, for those 'x' that exercise no authority? Clearly unbelief engenders no redemption or interval at all other than all interval t2 - t1 being the positive half of the whole real line. (On having the fault 'f' of a "lack of all faith" oposing L(G)) So there is no authority present to correct the believer's faith (faith as found in 'y'). However even an atheist may be without a specific fault with zero interval t2=t1 and be able to correct a believer at some matter of fault 'f' - but will not be able to correct on sin under the whole of the law. Atheists then may not correct on the efficacy of the gospel, whilst they themselves refuse correction from all divine authority.

A believer that is not saved will have the possibility of a suitably fine interval at some point to correct another with some wider interval, but those that struggle with sin will have no L(G) and t2=t1 at infinity, having fallen away. We simply require that the corrected is saved rather than the corrector, and the authority of the non-saved is present at times to correct, but the authority is not a guarantee of the redemption of the corrector, only the corrected.

The "blind leading the blind" may correct each other but never attain L(G), so there is no "divine authority" present in the correction as the corrected will not be saved. Both fall into a ditch.

There is also the equivalence to prophecy - where a false prophet is one that states a correct prediction but states "let us go follow other gods" . In similar fashion God is not concerned with the blind leading the blind, but only warns His people (the elect) to not heed such instruction - the prophet was not sent by God, and there is no authority in the prophet, even though the prediction came true. The result is that to follow such instruction would be to exchange L(G) for a less fine L(X). That is clearly without any divine authority, as the false prophet would have a wider interval than the redemption of the believer with L(G) - for we are justified by faith in Christ's example as He is "made sin for us". Our redemption is very fine indeed as our faith is on Christ. We acknowledge L(G) without understanding it at times!

Continue To Next Page

Return To Section Start